Monday, 17 October 2016

Want to understand the nitty-gritty of various laws and get hands-on experience? A mock court session can do the trick.

Moot courts, however considered an additional curricular action in the field of law, are given a great deal of significance by faculties and students. A mock court, in which anecdotal cases are contended upon, for the most part involves a group of three students who are relied upon to get ready in the interest of both the sides — the prosecution as well as the defense. Members are by and large known as "Mooters"

Out of a group of three, two students go about as Speakers, while the third one goes about as a Researcher. Speakers show the oral contention and the Researcher is not permitted to talk amid the procedure. Nonetheless, the Researcher goes about as the foundation of Speakers. In the event that anytime the Speakers get stuck amid the procedures, the Researcher needs to rapidly discover the answer and after that present it to the Speakers on a bit of paper.

In the preparatory rounds, memorials are exhibited; in view of which just a couple groups qualify. After the accommodation of the memorials, groups are given a period confine in which they are relied upon to get ready for their oral pleadings satisfactorily.

Mooters are encouraged to concentrate on the issue and practice however much as could be expected. It is vital to comprehend the law identified with the issue the moot is managing. The moot court's arrangement begins with research, goes ahead to drafting lastly comes to oral arguments.

Mooting does not merely mean defending and arguing for one’s point of view. It also teaches students the basic rules that are to be followed in a court.

Some importance and effectiveness of moot court are as follows

- The most critical thing mooting gives is viewpoint. It is stunning how there can be two to a great degree solid sides to similar fact sheet. This is where the line can be seen between the privilege and the wrong obscure; profound quality is something that does not, and ought not, direct choices. Mooting shines logical and speech abilities. It is a reasonable and handy method for being set up for the future that holds up after school.

- A moot court helps in improving legitimate information, as well as in catching up on correspondence, drafting, lawful research, and presentation aptitudes. Above all, it helps us in expanding certainty. Subsequent to showing moots, students experience genuine court procedures.

- Moot courts are an exhilarating experience and give the certainty to present case before genuine judges.

- If an student needs to build up his/her legitimate aptitudes, then mooting makes a difference. Be that as it may, it ought not be the sole thing in which understudies take an interest in school.

- Students get the chance to get issues all alone for which they require help of faculty, as well.

Monday, 10 October 2016

Under the CII conference discussion was done
regarding INVEST NORTH. In the conference certain points were discussed. The
northern region is among the largest regions in India comprising eight states —
Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Delhi,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and UT Chandigarh. The Northern region has
consistently outperformed India’s national average in terms of GDP, with the
region accounting for approximately 26 per cent of national GDP. However,
sustaining this growth rate will require greater investments, continuous
support of the government, and expansion of infrastructure, accessibility to
educated professionals and access to skilled labour.

The inaugural ceremony of CII Invest North
started by the Ms Rumjhum Chatterjee, chairperson, CII Northern Region and
Group Managing Director Feedback Infra Pvt limited. In the inaugural session
there was information related to the certain website given which is mycii.in.
This website is for the Business leads and provides financial supervision;
provide online program and many other useful things. After this the CEO of KPMG
India Mr. Richard Rekhy talk about the Compendium of opportunities in Northern
states’ report, CII along with KPMG present an overview of the Northern region
and summarize the advantages of investing and doing business across the
respective states. Identified within this report, are the unique combination of
complementary strengths of high economic growth rate, abundance of natural
resources, growing infrastructure, rising consumer demand and continuous
government support.

After this there was a release of CII
Investment Climate by the Hon’ble Minister of State and launch of Coffee table book
on Uttarakhand by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Uttarakhand. After the inaugural ceremony the special
state plenary was addressed by the Mr. Viren Popli Cheif operating officer
Mahindra and Mahindra who give the welcome remark.

Under this there was a presentation on
Investment Climate, Policies and Investment Opportunities in the State which
was Given by Mr. Anirudh Tewari Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce and
non – conventional energy and Chief Executive officer Punjab Bureau of Investment
Promotion Government Of Punjab. Under this discussed the following points

Punjab was originally known to be an agrarian
economy, however the manufacturing and service sectors have gradually increased
their contribution over the years. The state shares its border with Jammu and
Kashmir to the north, Himachal Pradesh to the northeast, Haryana to the south,
Rajasthan to the southwest and Pakistan to the west.

Following the main points were discussed throughout two days.

Punjab

•Hub for textile, light engineering goods, IT and ITeS and Automotive industries.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Daughter-in-law
should be treated as a family member and not housemaid, and she cannot be
"thrown out of her matrimonial home at any time", the Supreme Court
has said, while expressing concern over instances of brides being burnt and
tortured in the country. The apex court said a bride must be respected in her
matrimonial home as it "reflects the sensitivity of a civilized
society."

A daughter-in-law is to be treated as a member of the family
with warmth and affection and not as a stranger with respectable and ignoble
indifference. She should not be treated as a house maid. No impression should
be given that she can be thrown out of her matrimonial home at any time,"
a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.

"Respect
of a bride in her matrimonial home glorifies the solemnity and sanctity of
marriage, reflects the sensitivity of a civilized society and eventually
epitomizes her aspirations dreamt of in nuptial bliss. "But the manner in
which sometimes the bride is treated in many a home by the husband, in-law and
the relatives creates a feeling of emotional numbness in society," it
said.

The apex court made the observations while upholding the
sentence of seven-year jail term to a man for torturing his wife, who committed
suicide. The bench said it was a matter of great concern that brides in several
cases were being treated with total insensitivity, destroying their desire to
live.

"It is a matter of grave concern and shame that brides are
burned or otherwise their life-sparks are extinguished by torture, both
physical and mental, because of demand of dowry and insatiable greed and
sometimes, sans demand of dowry, because of cruelty and harassment meted out to
the nascent brides, treating them with total insensitivity, destroying their
desire to live and forcing them to commit suicide, a brutal self-humiliation of
life," the bench said.

In India marriage is a sacrament. It is a relation between
two souls. But due to certain reasons best
known to the husband and wife, if marriage tie cannot continued, the
legislature thought it better to break down the marriage tie, if it is in the
interest of both of them by mutual consent. Under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
divorce by mutual consent is allowed but statutory period of six months has to
be observed. In this case waiver in six months period was required by the
parties.

In this case, the
appellant wife and the respondent were married as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies in 2009. Due to temperamental differences, trouble arose in their
marriage and the parties started living separately since February, 2014.
Subsequently they filed a mutual divorce petition under section 13-B (1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Saket District Court, Delhi. The Court allowed the
first motion on mutually agreed terms but rejected the prayer of the parties
for waiver of the statutory period of six months before the second motion could
be filed. Therefore, on the question of waiver of the six month period, the
matter reached the apex court. The waiver was desired because the respondent
husband was to leave India owing to his professional obligations. The tickets
for the journey were confirmed and it would not have been possible for him to
return within a period of one to two years. This, therefore , would have
jeopardized the divorced proceedings by causing the first motion to lapse.

The court noted with approval the proceedings in the court
below. The only issue that remained to be answered was as to whether it was a
fit case for the court to exercise its power under article 142 of the
Constitution of India. The court relied on Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan
Chopra (2013) 15 SCC 547 wherein it was observed that using the power under
article 142 would be a prudent way to end multiple disputes between the parties
and ensure complete justice. Further, court also took note of Devinder Singh
Narulla v. Meenakshi Nangia (2012) 8 SCC 580, wherein it was observed: We have
carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have
also considered our decision in Anil Kumar Jain case (2009) 10 SCC 415. It is
no doubt true that the legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling off
period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual divorce till
such divorce is actually granted, with the intention that it
would save the institution of marriage. It is also true that the intention of
the legislature cannot be faulted with, but there may be occasions when in
order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this Court
to invoke its powers under article 142 in an irreconcilable situation. After
referring to the above cases, the apex court drew two conclusions. First, it
opined that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a specified ground for
divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Nevertheless the apex court may
invoke the same in cases before it when it comes to exercise of power under
article 142 of the Constitution and thereupon the court can waive the statutory
period of six months stipulated in section 13-B of the Act of 1955. But this
power of waiver is only available to the Supreme Court and not to any of the
courts below. Secondly, this power under article 142 can be used even to
convert a proceeding under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, into
proceeding under section 13-B and pass a decree for mutual divorce, without
waiting for the statutory period of six months. However, other courts cannot
exercise this power.

Under normal circumstances, the parties have to wait for a
six month period between the two motions for mutual divorce and their free
consent to part ways amicably and on mutually agreeable terms has to subsist
for the whole of the period. This period can also serve as a period of
introspection and for making attempts at reconciliation. However, the apex
court can, under suitable circumstances, waive off this period of six months as
well. Based on these considerations the Apex court found it a fit case for
exercising its power under article 142 and allowed the appeal by waiving the
six month period. It must be stated that marriage is no doubt a sacred
institution to be preserved by all means but it should not lead to suffering
and loss of an individual’s happiness. Such a union can neither be in the
interest of children nor of the spouses.

In this regard,
Cheshire says, Geoffrey C. Cheshire observes...Divorce since it distinguishes
the family unity, is of course, a social evil in itself , but it is a necessary
evil, it’s better to wreck the unity of family than to wreck the future happiness
of parties by binding them to companionship that has become odious. Membership
of a family founded on antagonism can bring little profit even to the children.
(G.C.Cheshire, “The International Validity of Divorces,” 61 Law Quarterly
Review, 352 (1945).

Ending such loveless, soul-less and tragic unions is in the
best interests of the concerned individuals and the society. There may be cases
where the hope of reunion or reconciliation or of matters cooling off can be so
low that it is best to waive off the statutory period of six months by using
the extraordinary power given to Supreme Court. There can be cases where
parties have been living separately for long periods or cases involving
extraordinary levels of physical or mental cruelty or other cases which warrant
use of such power. It must be noted however that this power ought not to be on
a regular basis so as to nullify the express wish of the legislature as
expressed in the statue. Also, perhaps the legislature should look at grounds
realities and work on a suitable amendment.

In this judgement the Apex Court has rightly expressed that
judiciary cannot go against the express will of the legislature, but it can
mould the law in the exceptional social situations in the best interest of the
society.